Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the survival, recurrence, and complication rates in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) and who received adjuvant therapy. The study was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive PDAC patients who underwent RPD/OPD. Patient characteristics, tumor findings, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapies, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the OPD and RPD cohorts. Cox proportional hazard regression with and without propensity score matching was used to establish the association between predictors and outcomes. One hundred PDAC patients underwent OPD (n = 36) or RPD (n = 64) from 2013 to 2019. Cox proportional hazard models showed that baseline bilirubin (HR 1.6, p = 0.0006) and operative characteristics such as the number of positive lymph nodes (HR 1.1, p = 0.002), lymph node ratio (HR 1.6, p = 0.001), tumor grade (HR 1.7, p = 0.02), and TNM classification (HR 2.3, p = 0.01) were associated with OS. The independent predictors post-intervention associated with mortality were adjuvant therapy (HR 0.4, p = 0.0003), ISGPS complications (HR 2.8, p = 0.02), and 90-day readmission (HR 2, p = 0.004). After adjustment for these predictors, adjuvant therapy, baseline bilirubin, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade remained the main predictors of mortality. Baseline bilirubin, adjuvant therapy, lymph node ratio, and tumor grade were the main determinants of mortality after OPD or RPD. There was no significant difference in OS and RFS after RPD or OPD in PC patients who received adjuvant therapy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Hsu CP et al (2018) Three-year and five-year outcomes of surgical resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: long-term experiences in one medical center. Asian J Surg 41(2):115–123
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2019) Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69(1):7–34
Lambert A et al (2019) An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ther Adv Med Oncol 11:1758835919875568
Conlon KC, Klimstra DS, Brennan MF (1996) Long-term survival after curative resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clinicopathologic analysis of 5-year survivors. Ann Surg 223(3):273–279
Sohn TA et al (2000) Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas-616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg 4(6):567–579
Distler M et al (2013) Evaluation of survival in patients after pancreatic head resection for ductal adenocarcinoma. BMC Surg 13:12
Ducreux M et al (2015) Cancer of the pancreas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 26(Suppl 5):v56-68
Valle V et al (2020) Robotic Whipple for pancreatic ductal and ampullary adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience of a US single-center. Int J Med Robot 16(5):1–7
Khorana AA et al (2019) Potentially curable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 37(23):2082–2088
Park W, Chawla A, O’Reilly EM (2021) Pancreatic cancer: a review. JAMA 326(9):851–862
Mejia A et al (2020) Analysis of 102 fully robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies: clinical and financial outcomes. Pancreas 49(5):668–674
Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196
Bassi C et al (2017) The 2016 update of the international study group (ISGPS) definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula: 11 years after. Surgery 161(3):584–591
Wente MN et al (2007) Postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH): an international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definition. Surgery 142(1):20–25
Wente MN et al (2007) Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatic surgery: a suggested definition by the international study group of pancreatic surgery (ISGPS). Surgery 142(5):761–768
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46(3):399–424
Brookhart MA et al (2006) Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 163(12):1149–1156
Strasberg SM et al (2014) Jaundice: an important, poorly recognized risk factor for diminished survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. HPB (Oxford) 16(2):150–156
Yagyu T et al (2019) Preoperative albumin-bilirubin grade as a useful prognostic indicator in patients with pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 39(3):1441–1446
Imamura T et al (2021) Clinical significance of preoperative albumin-bilirubin grade in pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 28(11):6223–6235
Baldwin S et al (2016) Pancreatic cancer metastatic to a limited number of lymph nodes has no impact on outcome. HPB 18(6):523–528
You MS et al (2019) Lymph node ratio as valuable predictor in pancreatic cancer treated with R0 resection and adjuvant treatment. BMC Cancer 19(1):952
Boone BA et al (2015) Assessment of quality outcomes for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: identification of the learning curve. JAMA Surg 150(5):416–422
Shi Y et al (2020) Short-term outcomes after robot-assisted vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy after the learning curve. JAMA Surg 155(5):389–394
Liu R et al (2019) International consensus statement on robotic pancreatic surgery. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 8(4):345–360
Lof S et al (2021) Risk of conversion to open surgery during robotic and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy and effect on outcomes: international propensity score-matched comparison study. Br J Surg 108(1):80–87
Beane JD et al (2018) Assessing the impact of conversion on outcomes of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 20(4):356–363
Oettle H et al (2007) Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297(3):267–277
Herman JM et al (2008) Analysis of fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation after pancreaticoduodenectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: results of a large, prospectively collected database at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J Clin Oncol 26(21):3503–3510
Conroy T et al (2018) FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 379(25):2395–2406
Tan WJ, Kow AW, Liau KH (2011) Moving towards the new international study group for pancreatic surgery (ISGPS) definitions in pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparison between the old and new. HPB (Oxford) 13(8):566–572
Lermite E et al (2013) Complications after pancreatic resection: diagnosis, prevention and management. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 37(3):230–239
McMillan MT et al (2017) A propensity score-matched analysis of robotic vs open pancreatoduodenectomy on incidence of pancreatic fistula. JAMA Surg 152(4):327–335
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AM contributed to the conception and design of the work, acquisition and interpretation of data, and substantively revised the work. JS made contributions to the acquisition and analysis of data and drafted the work. JCBG made contributions with collection of information, statistical analysis, interpretation of data, and drafted the work. EV made contributions to the conception of the work, interpretation of data, and drafted the work. RB drafted the work. PA made contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the data. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
Institutional review board approval was obtained (Aspire IRB, Inc., Santee, CA), and the need to obtain informed consent was waived. The waiver was approved because the research satisfied all three requirements for a waiver of authorization under 45 code of Federal Regulations 164.512.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
11701_2022_1510_MOESM2_ESM.jpg
Supplementary file2 Fig. 2 A Kaplan-Meier curve of overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing either open pancreaticoduodenectomy (open PD) or robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (Robotic PD). The median OS for patients who underwent open PD and robotic PD was 11.2 and 20 months, respectively. Although the survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years favored robotic PD (72%, 25%, 16%) over OPD (45%, 17%, no information), these differences were not significant (p=0.15) (JPG 46 KB)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mejia, A., Shah, J., Vivian, E. et al. Outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing robotic (RPD) or open pancreaticoduodenectomies (OPD): a propensity score-weighted survival analysis. J Robotic Surg 17, 1085–1096 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01510-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01510-w